Skip to content

Score: graded rating

Score rates content against 2–10 ordered, described levels. The difference from Choice: levels are ordered (severity, quality, intensity), so the answer is a number you can compare and combine.

{
"type": "score",
"instructions": "How frustrated the customer appears",
"criteria": ["Calm, just stating facts", "Frustrated but civil", "Very angry, strong language"]
}
  • criteria is an ordered array: index 0 is the lowest level; the last is the highest
  • 2–10 levels (official docs, verified 2026-09-22)
  • Every level needs a distinguishable description — description quality drives score quality
{
"type": "score",
"score": 1.0,
"legend": { "0": "Calm…", "1": "Frustrated…", "2": "Very angry…" },
"probabilities": { "0": 0.0, "1": 1.0, "2": 0.0 },
"confidence": 1.0
}
Field Meaning
score Probability-weighted mean across levels — can be fractional (1.4 = “between frustrated and angry, leaning frustrated”)
legend Level → description echo, handy for logs and UIs
probabilities Distribution across levels
confidence Concentration of the distribution; spread-out shapes (e.g. 50/50) score low
  • Content moderation tiers: score UGC by risk level, then publish/review/remove in code — see Content classification
  • Composite scoring: the official pattern — split a complex judgment into atomic Scores and merge them with weights you control in code (via the llms.txt index). Weights are business logic; they shouldn’t live in the model
  • Entity alignment: the official cookbook decides 450 candidate pairs across two beer catalogs with one three-level Score (merge / leave unlinked / hand to curator) — three levels matching three actions, with no threshold to fit
  • Candidates are unordered (teams, sources, skill names) → Choice
  • Candidates are ordered and you want “degree” → Score
  • You need a single yes/no → Noul

Next: Noul: yes-probability.